Commercial vessels

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

1

Thursday, June 10th 2004, 10:55pm

What are the rules for navies commandeering commercial vessels for naval use???

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

2

Friday, June 11th 2004, 2:02pm

I don't think there are any just yet.

India has recently "purchased" two small passenger ships for conversion into destroyer tenders. They were refitted for this role, and I paid the material costs accordingly.

I'm fine with people "buying" commercial vessels for use as tenders, cargo ships, oilers, or colliers - basically, your logistical train. Anything that is expected to go in harm's way, including minesweepers and armed trawlers, I'd expect to be built with one's own warship materials.

J

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

3

Friday, June 11th 2004, 7:22pm

Based on your reply then, when you build an armed cargo vessel, do you have to "build" the misc weight that relates to the cargo, or what?
It seems a bit silly for someone to have to use valuable tonnage to pay for empty space!!!

Or am I just reading the reports wrong????

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

4

Friday, June 11th 2004, 7:51pm

Since our material costs are based on light tonnage, yes, we do pay for the miscellaneous weight when we build the ship.

This is fine if the weight is for fittings like a flag bridge. I suppose it's a bit quaint for cargo, but three years into the sim, I don't think I'd want to change it.

J

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

5

Friday, June 11th 2004, 9:45pm

It just makes it impractical to build something like LOKI, so I suppose we might be able to come up with some sort of rule for vessels like her......maybe????

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

6

Saturday, June 12th 2004, 10:29pm

I seem to remember an earlier discussion where Hooman came out with a suggestion of reducing damage resistance by 80% for STUFT (ships taken up from trade). and we'll need a refit to get tem up to spec. Does that sound like a viable compromise? A rebuild might get them up to 50% damage resistance.

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

7

Saturday, June 12th 2004, 10:39pm

That's exactly what I was thinking of.
Any ship that was acquired would need to be brought up close to, if not actually to, navy standards!!

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

8

Sunday, June 13th 2004, 3:06am

50% increase in damage resistance would be a result of a drastic rebuild similar to the ones the british did with the Prince class (?) AMC's, but they only did a few (3?) IIRC because it was cheaper to just build DD's or CL's that gave better capabilitys. i don't think any armor was added to these ships either.

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

9

Sunday, June 13th 2004, 11:34am

I agree with Wes here, that is an excellent example. So STUFT means: you damage resistance is shot to h*ll. And getting it up to navy standards needs to be more expensive than building from scratch. Simply because modifying is more expensive thant a new build IRL (in real life) as well.

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

10

Sunday, June 13th 2004, 1:13pm

So what do I do if i wish to build more Loki(i)?
It would be crazy to have to pay for empty space in the build, yet to convert existing vessels would be both expensive and sub-standard???

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

11

Sunday, June 13th 2004, 1:25pm

Quoted

It would be crazy to have to pay for empty space in the build, yet to convert existing vessels would be both expensive and sub-standard???

I seem to remeber that conversions are usually of lesser quality. But I do agree with you that it is crazy to pay for empty space... unless cargo is included in the light displacement, but I do not think that it is.

Walter

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

12

Sunday, June 13th 2004, 5:37pm

Considering that Loki was designed with 6000 tons of misc weight for cargo capacity, and lets say that her comprenshive suite of cranes weigh in (with other bits)at a generous 1000 tons, thats 5000 tons of AIR that I have to "pay" for in the build!!!!
OUCH!!!!

Could we come up with some accomodation, specifically for cargo vessels??

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

13

Sunday, June 13th 2004, 9:29pm

It depends, is that 5000 tons of airspace going to be used for some secret weapon or stradegy? If so is it worth the cost?

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

14

Sunday, June 13th 2004, 9:30pm

As I mentioned, it is a question wether the cargo was included in the light displacement or not. If I'm not mistaken the light displacement is the weight of the ship empty... at least without fuel, food, water ammunition and I would think cargo as well.
I'm no expert, though, so am I right or am I wrong?
If I am right, that would mean that we would have to subtract the miscellaneous weight (well, the part of the miscellaneous weight that is assigned to the cargo) from the light displacement.
Any experts out there?

Walter

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

15

Sunday, June 13th 2004, 9:36pm

Quoted

It depends, is that 5000 tons of airspace going to be used for some secret weapon or stradegy?

Good question.
If I were to put a V-2 rocket aboard my cargo ship, would it be considered part of the cargo (because I am going to transport it to another part of the country) or part of the ship's weaponry (because I can launch it from my ship)?
Same would go for all kinds of weapons that you can transport.

Walter

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

16

Sunday, June 13th 2004, 11:30pm

The same arguement could be made for every rowing boat ever used the hunt Duck!!!!!

If the vessel is not the launch vessel of the weapon, it is a cargo vessel.
If the vessel is the launch vessel of the weapon, it is a warship!

yes...no...maybe?

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

17

Monday, June 14th 2004, 2:10pm

I have a feeling that I might want to discuss that with you over a few beers. Given recent expereinces, face to face discussions may be more useful for stuff like this.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

18

Monday, June 14th 2004, 4:55pm

To confuse you a bit more...

Too much beer and such a thing could end up as a fist to fist discussion.

Quoted

If the vessel is not the launch vessel of the weapon, it is a cargo vessel.
If the vessel is the launch vessel of the weapon, it is a warship!

Well, looking at the treaty such a ship would fall under Part 3, Chapter G, Article I (c) as long as the weapon in question is not a torpedo or a gun with a caliber above 6 inches or a large number of planes. So even if it is a 'warship' (or as we should call it a 'naval surface vessel'), it probably wouldn't be considered a fighting ship. But if it is a 'warship', then you should not divide the damage values by 10 what you normally do with a normal cargo ship. If you use warship materials for the ship, then it is a 'warship', but if it is not a 'warship', then you should not be using warship materials for it.

Walter

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

19

Monday, June 14th 2004, 5:02pm

Oh god... Walter!

*TILT*

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

20

Monday, June 14th 2004, 5:18pm

Whoops!! Looks like HoOmAn broke down. Guess it is time for a rebuild (according to the Wesworld rules). It's almost time for mine as well.
But we're still not any wiser about the cargo/airspace problem.

Walter

Go to the top of the page

WesWorld